Census report on Marital Events of Americans 2009

American Community Survey Reports

U.S. Department of CommerceEconomics and Statistics Administration

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

Marital Events of Americans: 2009

Marriage, divorce, and widowhood are important events in the lives of many adults in the United States. Marital events often signify important transitions into adulthood and family life. Researchers, policy makers, and the general public are interested in up-to-date information about the demographic characteristics of those with recent marital events because they reveal a great deal about family for-mation patterns nationwide.

This report describes marriage, divorce, and widowhood events in the United States using data collected in the 2009 American Community Survey (ACS). Beginning in 2008, questions about marital events were added to the ACS to collect national- and state-level mar-riage and divorce data. The main reason for the addition of these questions was the diminished quality of vital statistics data on marriage and divorce. With these questions, the ACS now provides a more complete picture of the state of marriage, divorce, and widowhood in the United States.

Recently, the U.S. Census Bureau released a working paper that compared the new marital events data from the 2008 ACS with vital statistics data. The working paper demonstrated that the survey-based marital events data collected on the ACS are comparable to administra-tive records-based data collected by vital statistics.1 This report moves the analysis of the ACS data beyond methodological

1 Elliott, Diana B., Simmons, Tavia, and Jamie M. Lewis. 2010. “Evaluation of the Marital Events Items on the ACS.” <www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo /marriage/data/acs/index.html>.

comparisons by profiling the marital events of Americans and describing the demographics of the ever-married popu-lation in 2009. This report features:

• Marriage, divorce, and widowhood rates for men and women for the nation and states.

• Demographic characteristics of adults who experienced a marital event.

• Age distributions of men’s and wom-en’s first marriages compared with historical data from vital statistics.

• A profile of children who live with a parent who divorced in the last year.

• Characteristics of married couples by their durations of marriage.2

• Age-adjusted durations of first and second marriages for women by state.

ACS mAritAl EVENtS itEmS

The American Community Survey (ACS) was started in the late 1990s to replace the collection of data from the long-form questionnaire in the decennial censuses. The U.S. Census Bureau mails a quarter-million ACS questionnaires every month to a nationwide sample. Follow-ups are conducted with nonrespondents to the mail questionnaire by phone and in-person interviews, collecting data from a sample of about 2 million households annually. The sample is then weighted to

2 In this report, only married couples of the oppo-site sex are shown in the tables.

Issued August 2011

ACS-13

By Diana B. ElliottandTavia Simmons

2 U.S. Census Bureau

be representative of the nation’s population as a whole.3

Among national surveys, the ACS is notable for its ability to reach a large, representative sample nationwide and to provide reliable estimates of trends in the United States and for smaller geog-raphies (such as state, county, and place levels) every year. Addition-ally, the ACS collects extensive data on a number of other topics of interest, including demographic, economic, and housing characteris-tics. These attributes make the ACS the ideal survey to collect annual national- and state-level data that mirror vital statistics records on marriage and divorce and to pro-vide a portrait of the marital events of Americans across many impor-tant characteristics.4

The marital status question, asking if the person is currently married, widowed, divorced, separated, or never married, has been on the ACS since the beginning of the survey. This question identifies the marital status of each respondent at the time of the survey. Marital events questions were added to the survey in 2008 and were asked of respondents 15 years old and older who had ever been married at the time of the survey. The new ques-tions help to construct a history of marriage, divorce, and widowhood among respondents by asking: (1) “In the past 12 months did this per-son get a) married?” b) widowed?” c) divorced?” (2) “How many times

3 The Puerto Rico Community Survey is similarly administered to the residents of Puerto Rico, but the data are not included in the U.S. totals discussed in this report.

4 A September 2008 Urban Institute Report prepared for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services entitled, “Assessment of Survey Data for the Analysis of Marriage and Divorce at the National, State, and Local Levels,” by Ratcliffe, C., Acs, G., Dore, T., and D. Moskowitz provided a detailed comparison of national surveys considered as possible candidates for collecting marital history data in lieu of vital statistics and identified the ACS as best suited for the task.

has this person been married?” and (3) “In what year did this person last get married?” Overall, the new marital events questions allow bet-ter measurement and understand-ing of changes in family growth and their outcomes.

These new marital events items fill a void in the marriage and divorce data collected in the United States. Historically, data on marriages and divorces in the United States were collected from marriage and divorce certificates filed and col-lected at the state-level through the vital statistics system by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). In 1996, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the NCHS decided to discontinue the collec-tion of detailed state-level vital records data from marriage and divorce certificates.

In the absence of up-to-date vital records information on marriages and divorces, the quality of U.S. marital events estimates has diminished. Consequently, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) approached the Census Bureau about adding marital history items to the ACS in order to have reliable and valid data for researchers and policymak-ers alike as part of its Healthy Marriage Initiative.5 With the resumed collection of marital events data on the ACS in 2008, reliable estimates of marriage and divorce rates, among other statis-tics, are available for the nation and states annually.

This report uses data from the 2009 ACS to describe the population in the United States who recently experienced a marital event (marriage, divorce,

5 See the Department of Health and Human Services “Healthy Marriage Initiative” Web site for more information at <www.acf .hhs.gov/healthymarriage/>.

widowhood). Included within this report are geographic, demo-graphic, and historical profiles that describe the current state of mar-riage, divorce, and widowhood in the United States.

GEoGrAphiC VAriAtioNS iN mArriAGE, diVorCE, ANd WidoWhood rAtES

One of the assets of the large, representative sample of the ACS is the ability to examine geographic variations in demographic char-acteristics. This section looks at geographic variations in marriage, divorce, and widowhood in the United States.6

Table 1 shows the national, regional, and state marriage, divorce, and widowhood rates for men and women in 2009. Rates throughout this report count the marital events reported in the past 12 months per 1,000 men or women in the population 15 and older. The overall national rates of marital events for men in 2009 were 19.1 marriages, 9.2 divorces, and 3.5 instances of widowhood. The overall national rates of marital events for women in 2009 were 17.6 marriages, 9.7 divorces, and 7.8 instances of widowhood. Varia-tions in rates between men and women can be attributed to gender differences in marriage. Women tend to live longer than men.7 Women also tend to marry older men.8 Consequently, widowhood

6 It should be noted that these rates refer to the areas where the respondents resided at the time of the survey, which may differ either from where they lived when the mar-riage or divorce occurred or the area where the vital event was recorded. For example, many people may marry or divorce in Nevada, but do not necessarily live in Nevada.

7 Arias, E. “United States life tables, 2004.” National vital statistics reports; Vol. 56, No. 9. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2007.

8 Kreider, Rose M. and Jason M. Fields. 2001. “Number, Timing, and Duration of Marriages and Divorces: Fall 1996.” Current Population Reports, P70-80. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC.

U.S. Census Bureau 3

Table 1. marriage, divorce, and Widowhood rates per 1,000 men and Women Aged 15 and over for the Nation, regions, and States: 2009(For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www/)

AreaMen Women

Marriage Divorce Widowhood Marriage Divorce Widowhood

Rate SE Rate SE Rate SE Rate SE Rate SE Rate SE

United States . . . 19 .1 0 .14 9 .2 0 .08 3 .5 0 .05 17 .6 0 .12 9 .7 0 .09 7 .8 0 .08

REGIONNortheast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 .0 0 .25 7 .2 0 .19 3 .5 0 .12 14 .4 0 .26 7 .5 0 .18 7 .8 0 .18Midwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 .0 0 .22 9 .1 0 .18 3 .6 0 .11 17 .1 0 .20 9 .2 0 .14 7 .8 0 .14South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 .3 0 .27 10 .2 0 .14 3 .7 0 .08 18 .6 0 .23 11 .1 0 .16 8 .2 0 .16West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 .7 0 .26 9 .2 0 .16 2 .9 0 .10 19 .2 0 .25 9 .8 0 .18 7 .0 0 .15

STATEAlabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 .2 1 .27 12 .7 0 .79 5 .0 0 .58 18 .8 1 .01 13 .9 0 .89 9 .4 0 .74Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 .0 2 .93 12 .5 2 .05 3 .3 1 .01 24 .7 3 .13 16 .2 3 .60 7 .0 1 .72Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 .3 0 .98 10 .8 0 .74 3 .1 0 .32 19 .0 0 .94 11 .9 0 .86 8 .0 0 .72Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 .4 1 .70 13 .5 1 .22 4 .9 0 .76 23 .0 1 .40 12 .8 1 .02 9 .9 0 .81California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 .1 0 .39 8 .0 0 .24 2 .9 0 .13 17 .5 0 .39 8 .9 0 .23 6 .8 0 .20Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 .5 1 .24 11 .6 0 .94 2 .6 0 .34 22 .0 1 .17 9 .4 0 .69 6 .4 0 .52Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 .1 1 .06 6 .7 0 .77 2 .6 0 .42 15 .9 0 .99 10 .7 0 .78 6 .3 0 .59Delaware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 .1 2 .89 8 .9 1 .39 5 .4 0 .97 20 .9 2 .54 8 .7 1 .62 8 .0 1 .10District of Columbia . . . . . . 17 .7 2 .53 6 .3 1 .89 1 .4 0 .65 16 .9 2 .14 8 .3 1 .93 7 .0 1 .42Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 .0 0 .58 8 .5 0 .32 4 .1 0 .26 15 .2 0 .49 9 .9 0 .40 8 .7 0 .33

Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 .1 0 .81 11 .5 0 .58 3 .5 0 .27 20 .4 0 .76 11 .7 0 .55 7 .3 0 .46Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 .9 2 .54 8 .3 1 .27 2 .7 0 .58 21 .9 2 .05 7 .8 1 .16 10 .3 1 .28Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 .8 1 .84 7 .7 1 .05 2 .9 0 .55 25 .1 1 .71 9 .7 1 .19 6 .5 0 .84Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 .9 0 .58 8 .0 0 .45 3 .4 0 .22 16 .3 0 .48 8 .0 0 .41 7 .4 0 .28Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 .8 0 .81 11 .0 0 .63 3 .4 0 .33 18 .9 0 .67 10 .7 0 .55 9 .1 0 .52Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 .5 1 .46 10 .2 0 .91 3 .4 0 .39 21 .5 1 .33 10 .8 0 .92 8 .4 0 .71Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 .1 1 .48 10 .6 1 .09 3 .1 0 .39 20 .8 1 .34 10 .2 0 .98 8 .6 0 .61Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 .2 1 .11 12 .6 0 .75 4 .2 0 .52 20 .5 1 .13 13 .5 0 .88 9 .5 0 .60Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 .6 1 .19 11 .0 0 .89 4 .4 0 .44 17 .6 1 .07 10 .0 0 .67 8 .3 0 .64Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 .5 1 .40 13 .0 1 .48 3 .7 0 .60 12 .2 1 .25 9 .1 1 .27 9 .3 0 .94

Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 .3 1 .02 8 .8 0 .69 3 .4 0 .32 16 .1 0 .91 8 .2 0 .54 7 .7 0 .46Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . . 15 .8 0 .70 7 .8 0 .52 3 .2 0 .29 14 .1 0 .68 7 .0 0 .54 7 .8 0 .52Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 .5 0 .69 9 .2 0 .53 4 .1 0 .28 15 .6 0 .62 9 .3 0 .42 7 .2 0 .31Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 .3 0 .77 7 .4 0 .60 3 .0 0 .27 15 .4 0 .72 7 .8 0 .54 6 .1 0 .39Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 .3 1 .54 11 .1 1 .01 4 .1 0 .47 17 .3 1 .41 12 .5 1 .03 9 .1 0 .79Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 .6 0 .81 9 .5 0 .67 3 .6 0 .33 18 .7 0 .85 10 .4 0 .68 8 .1 0 .47Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 .5 2 .31 9 .1 1 .71 4 .0 0 .85 18 .8 2 .40 11 .1 1 .64 8 .2 1 .36Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 .6 1 .44 8 .8 0 .94 3 .5 0 .57 18 .9 1 .70 9 .8 1 .11 8 .5 0 .78Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 .2 1 .65 12 .3 1 .20 3 .3 0 .50 22 .4 1 .49 12 .3 1 .06 7 .6 0 .75New Hampshire . . . . . . . . . 16 .7 1 .76 10 .1 1 .61 4 .2 0 .81 15 .5 1 .56 9 .6 1 .43 7 .0 0 .86

New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 .8 0 .59 6 .1 0 .46 3 .5 0 .25 13 .3 0 .51 6 .0 0 .30 7 .6 0 .41New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 .4 1 .90 10 .2 1 .11 3 .4 0 .48 19 .9 1 .91 10 .1 1 .35 5 .4 0 .66New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 .8 0 .47 6 .6 0 .31 3 .2 0 .20 14 .8 0 .44 7 .3 0 .29 7 .5 0 .27North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . 20 .4 0 .98 9 .9 0 .48 3 .4 0 .26 19 .0 0 .64 10 .3 0 .51 8 .0 0 .46North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . 26 .7 2 .93 8 .0 1 .44 3 .2 0 .81 27 .3 2 .97 8 .3 1 .62 8 .6 1 .17Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 .9 0 .61 9 .5 0 .45 4 .2 0 .25 15 .4 0 .55 10 .0 0 .46 8 .6 0 .33Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 .8 1 .29 12 .8 1 .01 4 .4 0 .61 22 .4 1 .11 14 .1 1 .19 8 .5 0 .59Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 .9 1 .10 10 .4 0 .80 3 .7 0 .38 18 .1 1 .09 11 .4 0 .83 8 .2 0 .65Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . 15 .5 0 .48 7 .7 0 .43 4 .2 0 .25 14 .3 0 .49 7 .4 0 .35 8 .8 0 .32Rhode Island . . . . . . . . . . . 15 .0 2 .11 9 .4 1 .79 3 .5 0 .69 15 .1 2 .32 9 .5 1 .44 7 .1 0 .91

South Carolina . . . . . . . . . . 18 .1 1 .18 8 .1 0 .70 4 .6 0 .57 15 .8 1 .00 7 .8 0 .57 9 .0 0 .54South Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . 20 .1 2 .64 10 .9 2 .50 3 .5 0 .92 20 .3 2 .60 8 .9 1 .59 6 .2 0 .99Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 .4 0 .85 11 .4 0 .75 3 .4 0 .36 17 .1 0 .78 11 .6 0 .61 9 .3 0 .63Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 .5 0 .61 10 .0 0 .35 2 .9 0 .16 20 .4 0 .54 11 .9 0 .37 7 .5 0 .26Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 .6 1 .77 10 .2 0 .93 2 .7 0 .39 26 .7 1 .49 10 .8 1 .02 4 .7 0 .58Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 .4 2 .40 9 .6 1 .87 3 .6 0 .89 15 .4 2 .05 11 .5 2 .16 5 .6 1 .12Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 .5 0 .83 8 .9 0 .52 3 .0 0 .26 18 .8 0 .87 10 .2 0 .78 7 .2 0 .44Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 .4 1 .00 10 .0 0 .65 2 .6 0 .29 20 .3 0 .81 10 .6 0 .59 7 .1 0 .46West Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . 22 .2 1 .69 10 .9 1 .34 4 .4 0 .76 20 .8 1 .74 11 .8 1 .13 9 .7 0 .86Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 .2 0 .79 8 .3 0 .57 3 .4 0 .31 16 .2 0 .72 7 .5 0 .43 7 .1 0 .42Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 .7 3 .92 10 .3 1 .90 5 .4 1 .48 28 .7 3 .78 10 .7 2 .20 7 .8 1 .77

Source: U .S . Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2009 .


rates were higher for women. Men also remarry more than women do, so men’s marriage rates were higher than women’s rates.9

There were interesting state varia-tions in the rates of marital events. Looking at variations in marriage rates, the states with the lowest marriage rates for men in 2009 tended to be in the Northeast. Maine and New Jersey were among the states with low marriage rates with 13.5 and 14.8 marriages per 1,000 men.10 Maine and New Jersey also had low marriage rates per 1,000 women, with 12.2 and 13.3

9 Elliott, Diana B. and Jamie M. Lewis. 2010. “Embracing the Institution of Marriage: The Characteristics of Remarried Americans.” <www.census.gov/population /www/socdemo/marr-div/Remarriage.pdf>.

10 The marriage rates for men in Maine and New Jersey were not significantly different.

marriages, respectively.11 Utah, Wyoming, and North Dakota were among the states with high mar-riage rates in 2009, with 29.6, 30.7, and 26.7 marriages per 1,000 men.12 Utah, Wyoming, and North Dakota also had high mar-riage rates among women with 26.7, 28.7, and 27.3 marriages per 1,000 women.13

Looking at 2009 divorce rates, both men and women had low divorce rates in the state of New Jersey, (6.1 divorces per 1,000 men; 6.0 divorces per 1,000 women).14

11 The marriage rates for women in Maine and New Jersey were not significantly different.

12 The marriage rates for men in Utah, Wyoming, and North Dakota were not signifi-cantly different.

13 The marriage rates for women in Utah, Wyoming, and North Dakota were not signifi-cantly different.

14 The divorce rates for men in New Jersey and women in New Jersey were not signifi-

Among those states with high divorce rates for men were Arkansas (13.5) and Maine (13.0).15 States with high divorce rates for women included Alaska (16.2) and Oklahoma (14.1).16 Delaware and Wyoming were among the states with more widowers (5.4 per 1,000 men).17 Hawaii was among the states reporting more widows (10.3 per 1,000 women).

Figures 1 through 4 are national maps showing states signifi-cantly different from the national 2009 marriage and divorce rates. Figure 1 shows state variations

cantly different.15 The divorce rates for men in Arkansas

and Maine were not significantly different.16 The divorce rates for women in Alaska

and Oklahoma were not significantly differ-ent.

17 The widowhood rates for men in Delaware and Wyoming were not significantly different.

MT

AK

NM

OR MN

KS

SD

MO

WA

FL

IL IN

WI NY

PA

MI

OHIA

ME

MA

CT

AZ

HI

NV

TX

COCA

WY

ND

UT

AR

ID

NE

OK

GAAL

NC

MS

LA

TN

KYVA

SC

WV

RI

DE MD DC

NJ

Figure 1.Marriage Rates for Men by State: 2009(For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www/)

VTNH

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2009.

•

•

•

••

•

••

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

••

• ••

•

•

•

•

•

•

••

U.S. average:19.1 marriagesper 1,000 men15 and older

Marriage Rates andStatistical Significance

13.5–17.017.1– 19.119.2–25.725.8–30.7

• Different from U.S. average

Marriage rates

Statistical significance


in marriage rates for men and whether or not they were signifi-cantly different from the U.S. average (19.1 marriages per 1,000 men). Seventeen states had marriage rates for men significantly above the U.S. average, ranging from 20.5 to 30.7. Thirteen states had marriage rates for men sig-nificantly below the U.S. average, ranging from 13.5 to 17.9. Twelve of the thirteen states where men had marriage rates below the U.S. average were located east of the Mississippi River.

Figure 2 shows marriage rates for women and whether state rates varied significantly from the 2009 U.S. average (17.6 marriages per 1,000 women). Overall, 19 states had marriage rates for women that were significantly above the U.S. average, ranging from 18.9 to

28.7. Thirteen states had marriage rates for women significantly below the U.S. average, ranging from 12.2 to 16.3. As with the men, all but one state where women had mar-riage rates below the U.S. average were located east of the Mississippi River (Minnesota was the exception).

In Figure 3, divorce rates for men are shown by state. In 2009, 14 states had divorce rates for men that were significantly above the U.S. average (9.2 per 1,000 men), ranging from 10.0 to 13.5. In contrast, nine states had divorce rates for men significantly below the U.S. average, ranging from 6.1 to 8.5. Of the nine states with below average divorce rates for men, five states were located in the Northeast (New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and

Massachusetts). Higher than aver-age divorce rates for men occurred mostly in Southern states, includ-ing Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Texas.

Finally, Figure 4 shows state divorce rates for women and whether they varied significantly from the 2009 U.S. average (9.7 divorces per 1,000 women). Four-teen states had divorce rates for women above the U.S. average, ranging from 10.7 to 16.2. Nine of the fourteen states were in the South, including Tennessee, Georgia, West Virginia, Texas, Mississippi, Arkansas, Kentucky, Alabama, and Oklahoma. In con-trast, 10 states had divorce rates for women below the U.S. average, ranging from 6.0 to 8.9. Four states with below average divorce rates

MT

AK

NM

OR MN

KS

SD

MO

WA

FL

IL IN

WI NY

PA

MI

OH

ME

MA

CT

AZ

HI

NV

TX

COUT

CA

WY

ID

NE

GA

AROK

IA

ND

KY

WV

AL

NC

MS

LA

TN

VA

SC

RI

DE MD DC

NJ

Figure 2.Marriage Rates for Women by State: 2009(For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www/)

VTNH

U.S. average: 17.6 marriages per 1,000 women15 and older

Marriage Rates and Statistical Significance

12.2–15.515.6–17.617.7–20.320.4–28.7


• Different from U.S. averageStatistical significance

•

•

•

••

•

••

•

•

•

•

••

•

•

• ••

• ••

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

••

Marriage rates


for women were in the Northeast (New Jersey, Massachusetts, New York, and Pennsylvania). It is no coincidence that areas with high marriage rates were also areas with high divorce rates; men and women at risk for divorce were currently married at the time.

profilES of AmEriCANS Who EXpEriENCEd A mAritAl EVENt iN thE lASt YEAr

Marriage and divorce are events experienced by some demographic groups more than others. Such events, like divorce, may also be

a difficult transition, sometimes affecting the economic well-being of families. The following section presents the characteristics of men and women who divorced in the last year, as well as the character-istics of children who lived with a parent who divorced in the last year in order to better understand who is most likely to experience marital event transitions. This section also presents an histori-cal comparison of the ages at first marriage among men and women in 2009 relative to prior decades, providing a glimpse at the chang-ing age profile of the newly married population.

Characteristics of men and Women Who married, divorced, or Were Widowed last Year

Table 2 shows the characteristics of men and women who were married, divorced, or widowed in the past 12 months. Not surpris-ingly, the ages of individuals had strong associations with whether they were married, divorced, or widowed in the last year. For example, 44 percent of men and 42 percent of women who married in the last year were aged 25 to 34. Given that individuals who divorce need to first be married, it is not

MT

AK

NM

OR MN

KS

SD

ND

MO

WA

FL

IL

WI NY

PA

MI

OHIA

ME

MA

CT

AZ

HI

NV

TX

CO

AR

LA

MS AL

TN

KY

IN

OK

CA

WY

UT

ID

NE

GA

NC

VA

SC

WV

RI

DE MD DC

NJ

Figure 3.Divorce Rates for Men by State: 2009(For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www/)

VT NH

U.S. average: 9.2 divorces per 1,000 men 15 and older

Divorce Rates and Statistical Significance

6.1–7.98.0–9.29.3–10.911.0–13.5


••

•

•

••

•

•

•

• •

•

•

•

•

•

••

•

•

•

•

•

• Different from U.S. averageStatistical significance

Divorce rates


surprising that men and women who divorced in the last year were older, with the highest percentages among those 35 to 44 years old (29 percent of men and 30 percent of women).18 As expected, the major-ity of widowed males and females were 65 years and over (70 percent and 66 percent, respectively).

There were also variations in marital events by race and Hispanic origin.19 For instance, 16 percent

18 Widowhood events in the last 12 months among men 35–44 years old and women 35–44 years old were not significantly different.

19 Federal surveys now give respondents the option of reporting more than one race. Therefore, two basic ways of defining a race group are possible. A group such as Asian may be defined as those who reported Asian and no other race (the race-alone or single-race concept) or as those who reported Asian regardless of whether they also reported another race (the race-alone-or-in-combination concept). The body of this report (text, figures, and tables) shows data

of men and women married in the last 12 months were of Hispanic or Latino origin, while 14 percent of the total population was in this

using the first approach (race alone). Use of the single-race population does not imply that it is the preferred method of presenting or analyzing data. The Census Bureau uses a variety of approaches. All comparative statements regarding race in the text are based on the race-alone concept and, unless noted to the contrary, are also true in terms of statistical significance for the race alone-or-in-combination concept. In this report, the term “non-Hispanic White” refers to people who are not Hispanic and who reported White and no other race. The Census Bureau uses non-Hispanic Whites as the comparison group for other race groups and Hispanics. Because Hispanics may be any race, data in this report for Hispanics overlap with data for racial groups. Based on the population 15 and older in the 2009 ACS, 11.5 percent of the White population, 2.2 percent of the Black popula-tion, 18.4 percent of the American Indian and Alaska Native population, 1.0 percent of the Asian population, 5.3 percent of the Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander population, 95.5 percent of those with some other race, and 26.2 percent of all remaining race combina-tions were of Hispanic origin.

group.20 Among those widowed in the last year, 77 percent of men and 73 percent of women widowed were White alone, not Hispanic or Latino, higher than the nationwide proportion for this group (68 per-cent). Such marriage and widow-hood differences were consistent with age differences between the Hispanic and non-Hispanic White population. In 2004, the median age of the Hispanic population was 13 years younger than the non-Hispanic White population.21

Those who married in the past 12 months generally had higher

20 Marriages in the last 12 months among Hispanic or Latino men and Hispanic or Latino women were significantly different from each other.

21 Pew Hispanic Center. 2007. “The American Community—Hispanics: 2004,” American Community Survey Reports. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington DC. <www .census.gov/prod/2007pubs/acs-03.pdf>.

MT

AK

NM

OR MN

KS

SD

ND

MO

WA

FL

IL IN

WI NY

PA

MI

OHIA

ME

MA

CT

AZ

HI

NV

TX

TN

KY

WV

ALMS

AROK

COCA

WY

UT

ID

NE

GA

NC

LA

VA

SC

RI

DE MD DC

NJ

Figure 4.Divorce Rates for Women by State: 2009(For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www/)

VT NH

U.S. average: 9.7 divorces per 1,000 women 15 and older

Divorce Rates and Statistical Significance

6.0–8.28.3–9.79.8–11.011.1–16.2


•

•

•

••

••

••

•••

••

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

••

• •

Different from U.S. average

Divorce rates



Table 2.Characteristics of those married, divorced, and Widowed in the last 12 months, by Sex: 2009—Con.(For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www/)

CharacteristicTotal

Total Married Divorced Widowed

Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women

Population 15 years and over . . . . . . 245,155,843 119,715,944 125,439,899 2,286,750 2,208,971 1,098,959 1,219,656 414,887 975,517PERCENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 .0 100 .0 100 .0 100 .0 100 .0 100 .0 100 .0 100 .0 100 .0

Age15 to 24 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 .6 18 .6 16 .7 19 .5 27 .9 3 .8 5 .8 0 .5 0 .525 to 34 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 .9 17 .6 16 .2 43 .9 41 .8 23 .7 27 .3 1 .3 1 .635 to 44 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 .0 17 .4 16 .6 18 .3 15 .8 29 .4 30 .1 3 .5 3 .645 to 54 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 .2 18 .4 18 .0 10 .9 9 .4 26 .0 22 .9 9 .0 10 .255 to 64 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 .2 14 .0 14 .4 5 .0 3 .7 12 .0 9 .8 15 .5 17 .765 years and over . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 .1 14 .0 18 .1 2 .4 1 .4 5 .2 4 .2 70 .1 66 .4

Race and Hispanic OriginOne race . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 .2 98 .2 98 .2 97 .9 97 .8 97 .8 97 .8 98 .9 98 .8 White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 .4 76 .6 76 .1 74 .9 75 .9 77 .4 76 .1 81 .5 79 .0 Black or African American . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 .0 11 .5 12 .5 11 .3 9 .9 12 .5 13 .1 10 .7 11 .9 American Indian and Alaska Native . . . . . . . . . 0 .8 0 .8 0 .8 0 .8 0 .9 0 .9 0 .8 0 .7 0 .8 Asian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 .6 4 .4 4 .7 5 .0 5 .7 2 .6 3 .8 3 .1 5 .1 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander . . . 0 .1 0 .1 0 .1 0 .2 0 .2 0 .2 0 .1 0 .2 0 .2 Some other race . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 .4 4 .8 4 .0 5 .7 5 .2 4 .3 3 .9 2 .6 1 .9Two or more races . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .8 1 .8 1 .8 2 .1 2 .2 2 .2 2 .2 1 .1 1 .2Hispanic or Latino origin (of any race) . . . . . . . . . 13 .9 14 .8 13 .1 16 .4 15 .7 12 .7 12 .8 7 .9 8 .3White alone, not Hispanic or Latino . . . . . . . . . . . 67 .6 67 .4 67 .8 65 .1 66 .3 69 .9 68 .2 76 .6 73 .3

NativityNative born . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 .1 84 .7 85 .4 82 .6 83 .7 87 .7 87 .1 89 .7 85 .5Foreign born . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 .9 15 .3 14 .6 17 .4 16 .3 12 .3 12 .9 10 .3 14 .5

Educational Attainment Population 25 years and over . . . . . . 201,952,383 97,482,149 104,470,234 1,840,980 1,592,007 1,057,342 1,149,522 412,642 970,717Less than high school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 .7 15 .5 14 .1 10 .8 8 .4 12 .6 10 .1 26 .6 25 .8High school graduate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 .5 28 .6 28 .4 26 .6 21 .0 30 .7 26 .1 32 .7 37 .0Some college . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 .9 27 .5 30 .1 31 .1 32 .4 33 .3 39 .1 22 .2 24 .3Bachelor’s degree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 .6 17 .6 17 .5 21 .1 24 .8 15 .3 16 .4 11 .1 8 .5Graduate or professional degree . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 .3 10 .8 9 .9 10 .4 13 .3 8 .1 8 .3 7 .4 4 .4

Number of Times Married

Ever married population 15 years and over . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167,145,025 77,557,947 89,587,078 2,286,750 2,208,971 1,098,959 1,219,656 414,887 975,517

Once . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 .4 75 .3 75 .5 70 .3 69 .7 65 .3 65 .8 72 .2 72 .4Twice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 .3 19 .4 19 .3 22 .1 22 .4 25 .6 25 .5 21 .9 21 .2Three or more times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 .2 5 .3 5 .2 7 .7 7 .8 9 .1 8 .7 5 .8 6 .4

Population 15 years and over living in households . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236,945,166 114,875,609 122,069,557 2,232,756 2,194,229 1,059,930 1,208,742 401,015 951,307

Family StatusLiving with own children under 181 . . . . . . . . . . . 26 .3 24 .0 28 .4 33 .6 35 .7 18 .4 43 .5 6 .1 6 .4Has an unmarried partner2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 .5 5 .8 5 .3 0 .4 0 .6 16 .0 14 .5 2 .0 1 .3Living in a multigenerational household . . . . . . . 7 .2 6 .1 8 .3 6 .0 7 .1 5 .4 10 .7 7 .6 9 .6

Public Assistance in the Past 12 Months

Living in households with Supplemental Security Income (SSI), cash public assistance income, or Food Stamp benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 .1 12 .6 15 .5 14 .1 15 .2 14 .7 23 .3 13 .3 17 .0

Household Income in the Past 12 Months

Less than $25,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 .2 15 .6 20 .7 13 .4 14 .7 17 .2 27 .2 35 .3 49 .7$25,000 to $49,999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 .4 23 .2 23 .6 24 .3 23 .9 27 .2 29 .9 29 .4 25 .1$50,000 to $74,999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 .6 20 .3 19 .0 22 .7 22 .4 23 .0 19 .4 15 .6 11 .5$75,000 and over . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 .7 40 .8 36 .7 39 .6 39 .0 32 .6 23 .4 19 .8 13 .6 See footnotes at end of table .


levels of education than the overall population. While 18 percent of all people 25 years and older had a bachelor’s degree, 21 percent of men and 25 percent of women who married in the past 12 months had a bachelor’s degree. While 10 per-cent of the population 25 years and over had a graduate or professional degree, 13 percent of women who married in the past 12 months had such credentials. This could be due to younger generations having achieved higher levels of education

than previous generations, and the association of recent nuptials with younger adults.22

The family living situations of those with recent marital events also var-ied. While 26 percent of the overall population in households lived with their own children under age 18, those married in the last 12 months were more likely to do so (34

22 Crissey, S. “Educational Attainment in the United States: 2007.” Current Population Reports, P20-560, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington DC, 2009.

percent of men and 36 percent of women). For those divorced in the past 12 months, 18 percent of men were living with their own children, while 44 percent of such women were living with their own chil-dren. Not surprisingly, those who divorced in the past 12 months were more likely to be living with an unmarried partner (16 percent of men and 15 percent of women compared with 6 percent of the

Table 2.Characteristics of those married, divorced, and Widowed in the last 12 months, by Sex: 2009—Con.(For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www/)

CharacteristicTotal



Labor Force Status Civilian population 16 years

and over . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239,711,652 116,492,863 123,218,789 2,195,499 2,184,691 1,074,651 1,209,034 413,623 974,598In Labor Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 .1 70 .7 59 .8 88 .6 77 .0 82 .8 80 .9 28 .0 25 .2 Employed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 .7 63 .2 54 .4 80 .3 68 .9 73 .3 72 .7 25 .2 22 .9 Unemployed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 .4 7 .6 5 .4 8 .3 8 .1 9 .5 8 .3 2 .8 2 .3Not in Labor Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 .9 29 .3 40 .2 11 .4 23 .0 17 .2 19 .1 72 .0 74 .8

Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months Population 15 years and over for

whom poverty status is determined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238,184,455 115,604,283 122,580,172 2,237,219 2,196,039 1,064,915 1,211,483 402,966 953,582

Income in the past 12 months below poverty level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 .7 11 .1 14 .3 8 .9 10 .4 10 .5 21 .5 11 .8 20 .9

Income in the past 12 months at or above poverty level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 .3 88 .9 85 .7 91 .1 89 .6 89 .5 78 .5 88 .2 79 .1

Veteran Status Civilian population 18 years

and over . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231,222,799 112,139,727 119,083,072 2,187,850 2,170,845 1,073,388 1,207,770 413,623 974,365Veterans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 .5 18 .2 1 .2 11 .0 1 .4 18 .9 2 .5 50 .2 1 .4

Disability Status Civilian noninstitutionalized

population 15 years and over . . . . . 239,658,829 115,910,227 123,748,602 2,173,329 2,187,968 1,043,960 1,202,488 402,454 953,719With any disability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 .2 13 .6 14 .7 7 .0 6 .0 13 .6 12 .4 39 .3 36 .4

Population 15 years and over living in occupied housing units . . . . . . . 236,945,166 114,875,609 122,069,557 2,232,756 2,194,229 1,059,930 1,208,742 401,015 951,307

Housing TenureIn owner-occupied housing units . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 .3 69 .6 69 .1 52 .1 52 .4 57 .1 53 .1 80 .2 76 .1In renter-occupied housing units . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 .7 30 .4 30 .9 47 .9 47 .6 42 .9 46 .9 19 .8 23 .9

Units in Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .In 1-unit structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 .8 74 .2 73 .3 62 .0 62 .6 66 .0 64 .1 76 .0 73 .5In 2-or-more-unit structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 .4 19 .8 20 .9 31 .3 30 .7 26 .7 27 .9 15 .4 19 .2In mobile homes and all other types of units . . . . 5 .8 6 .0 5 .7 6 .7 6 .7 7 .3 7 .9 8 .6 7 .4

1 Includes children in subfamilies .2 Includes people who are either the householder or the unmarried partner of the householder .Note: See Appendix Table 1 for the standard errors that accompany the estimates on this table .Source: U .S . Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2009 .


general population).23 Women who divorced in the past 12 months were also more likely to be living in a multigenerational household (11 percent of such women, com-pared with 7 percent of the general population), while only 5 percent of recently divorced men lived in a multigenerational household. Given that women following divorce were more often caring for their children, too, multigenerational households may be a support strategy.24

The economic well-being of those with recent marital events also dif-fered. Women who divorced in the past 12 months were more likely to receive public assistance than recently divorced men (23 percent and 15 percent, respectively). Look-ing at household income, women who divorced in the past 12 months reported less income than recently divorced men. For exam-ple, 27 percent of women who divorced in the past 12 months had less than $25,000 in household income compared with 17 percent of recently divorced men. Similarly, women who divorced in the past 12 months were more likely than recently divorced men to be in pov-erty (22 percent compared with 11 percent, respectively).

Those married in the last 12 months were most likely to be liv-ing in households making $75,000 or more a year (40 percent of men and 39 percent of women, compared with 33 percent and 23 percent of recently divorced men and women, respectively, and 20 percent and 14 percent of recently widowed men and women,

23 The small percentage of people married in the last year and currently living with an unmarried partner reflects marital breakup shortly after marriage and changes in subse-quent living arrangements.

24 Bengston, Vern L., 2001. “Beyond the Nuclear Family: The Increasing Importance of Multigenerational Bonds,” Journal of Marriage and Family, 63 (February): 1–16.

respectively).25 Higher household incomes of the recently married may reflect the newly combined incomes of two working adults in one household. Similarly, 89 percent of recently married men and 77 percent of recently married women were in the labor force, while 71 percent of men and 60 percent of women in the overall population were in the labor force. High labor force participation rates were also reported by the recently divorced (83 percent of men and 81 percent of women). As previ-ously discussed, the recently mar-ried and divorced were younger overall than the recently widowed, so were also more likely to be in the labor force.

Homeownership rates were lower among those married (52 percent of men and women) and divorced in the past 12 months (57 percent of men and 53 percent of women), compared with the overall popula-tion (69 percent). Living in single-unit housing structures was less common for those married (62 percent of men and 63 percent of women) and divorced in the past 12 months (66 percent of men and 64 percent of women), compared with the overall population (74 percent). Such housing character-istics of the recently married and divorced may reflect their youth and nascent stages in adult life.

Overall, these characteristics reflect two overarching findings. First, dif-ferences among the recently mar-ried, divorced, and widowed may be attributable to age differences (such as differences in race and Hispanic origin, educational attain-ment, housing tenure, and units in structure). Second, the data show that recently divorced women were financially strained compared with

25 Marriages in the last 12 months among men making $75,000 or more and women making $75,000 or more were not signifi-cantly different.

others, having higher poverty rates, lower incomes, and greater use of public assistance, despite high labor force participation rates. Such financial differences were likely interrelated, considering the data also show that recently divorced women were more often living with their children than similar men, and research showing that women routinely earn less than men.26

Characteristics of the Children living With a parent Who divorced in the last Year

Policymakers in the United States have long been interested in the effects of divorce upon children. Table 3 compares the characteris-tics of children living with parents who divorced in the last year, with children living with parents who did not divorce in the last year.27 Overall, 1,100,401 children, or 1.5 percent of children in the United States in 2009 lived in the home of a parent who divorced in the last year. Looking at the median ages of the children, those whose parents divorced last year were older than children whose parents did not divorce last year (9.8 years compared with 9.1 years). Neither boys nor girls were significantly more likely to have a parent who divorced in the last year. Sixty-four percent of children living with a parent who divorced last year identified as White, non-Hispanic, compared with 57 percent of White, non-Hispanic children whose parents did not divorce. While the largest percentage of children in the United States lived in the South

26 Goldin, Claudia. 1992. Understand-ing the Gender Gap: An Economic History of American Women, Oxford University Press.

27 Table 3 shows the characteristics of children who were under 18 and were reported as children of the householder. The parent (householder) was the individual who experienced a divorce in the last year. We have no information about parents who were not living in the household. The term “parent” in this section will be used to refer to parents (householders) with whom children were living.


Table 3.Characteristics of Children Who live With a parent Who divorced last Year:1 2009—Con.(For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www/)

Characteristic

Total children of householdersLives with a parent who did not

divorce last yearLives with a parent who divorced

last year

Number

Stan-dard error

Per-cent

Stan-dard error Number

Stan-dard error

Per-cent


Stan-dard error

Per-cent

Stan-dard error

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65,927,475 48,253 100 .0 (X) 64,827,074 48,557 100 .0 (X) 1,100,401 16,035 100 .0 (X)

Median age (years) . . . . . . . . . . 9 .2 0 .01 (X) (X) 9 .1 0 .01 (X) (X) 9 .8 0 .08 (X) (X)

SexBoy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33,741,081 29,914 51 .2 0 .02 33,176,103 30,963 51 .2 0 .03 564,978 9,771 51 .3 0 .45Girl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32,186,394 27,900 48 .8 0 .02 31,650,971 28,171 48 .8 0 .03 535,423 9,037 48 .7 0 .45

Race and Hispanic OriginOne race . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62,839,510 58,482 95 .3 0 .04 61,799,004 57,348 95 .3 0 .04 1,040,506 16,093 94 .6 0 .34 White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46,605,756 39,920 70 .7 0 .06 45,791,192 40,151 70 .6 0 .06 814,564 14,259 74 .0 0 .65 Black or African American . . . 8,583,553 30,239 13 .0 0 .04 8,443,762 30,836 13 .0 0 .04 139,791 5,379 12 .7 0 .43 American Indian and

Alaska Native . . . . . . . . . . . . 539,056 9,517 0 .8 0 .01 527,678 9,327 0 .8 0 .01 11,378 1,646 1 .0 0 .15 Asian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,837,925 11,502 4 .3 0 .02 2,814,235 11,826 4 .3 0 .02 23,690 1,762 2 .2 0 .16 Native Hawaiian and Other

Pacific Islander . . . . . . . . . . 92,535 3,364 0 .1 0 .01 91,422 3,313 0 .1 0 .01 1,113 438 0 .1 0 .04 Some other race . . . . . . . . . . 4,180,685 32,592 6 .3 0 .05 4,130,715 32,320 6 .4 0 .05 49,970 3,633 4 .5 0 .32Two or more races . . . . . . . . . . . 3,087,965 23,364 4 .7 0 .04 3,028,070 22,502 4 .7 0 .04 59,895 3,765 5 .4 0 .34Hispanic or Latino origin

(of any race) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,201,612 23,928 21 .5 0 .03 14,015,640 23,821 21 .6 0 .03 185,972 7,574 16 .9 0 .61White alone, not Hispanic

or Latino . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37,722,098 22,493 57 .2 0 .04 37,021,674 21,722 57 .1 0 .04 700,424 12,210 63 .7 0 .67

No Health Insurance . . . . . . . . . 5,284,361 38,974 8 .0 0 .06 5,210,585 38,793 8 .0 0 .06 73,776 3,957 6 .7 0 .34

RegionNortheast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,168,920 12,871 16 .9 0 .02 11,020,137 13,325 17 .0 0 .02 148,783 5,444 13 .5 0 .48Midwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,518,885 15,644 22 .0 0 .02 14,259,749 16,373 22 .0 0 .02 259,136 6,266 23 .5 0 .59South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24,338,475 30,844 36 .9 0 .03 23,893,264 29,838 36 .9 0 .03 445,211 11,035 40 .5 0 .70West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,901,195 21,466 24 .1 0 .03 15,653,924 24,117 24 .1 0 .03 247,271 8,353 22 .5 0 .63

Household Economic Characteristics

Household below poverty level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,771,581 78,939 19 .4 0 .11 12,458,790 78,661 19 .2 0 .11 312,791 10,639 28 .4 0 .81

Household receives public assistance2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,531,290 76,008 20 .5 0 .11 13,211,622 75,473 20 .4 0 .11 319,668 10,177 29 .1 0 .78

Householder SexMale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33,821,818 77,050 51 .3 0 .13 33,549,483 77,275 51 .8 0 .13 272,335 9,246 24 .7 0 .69Female . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32,105,657 96,596 48 .7 0 .13 31,277,591 94,401 48 .2 0 .13 828,066 13,018 75 .3 0 .69

Educational Attainment of Householder

Less than high school . . . . . . . . 9,154,387 59,555 13 .9 0 .09 9,053,802 59,429 14 .0 0 .09 100,585 5,835 9 .1 0 .49High school graduate . . . . . . . . . 15,253,822 57,203 23 .1 0 .08 14,990,624 55,770 23 .1 0 .08 263,198 8,653 23 .9 0 .72Some college . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21,264,268 54,206 32 .3 0 .08 20,801,602 55,378 32 .1 0 .08 462,666 9,635 42 .0 0 .59Bachelor’s degree or more . . . . 20,254,998 65,884 30 .7 0 .11 19,981,046 65,267 30 .8 0 .11 273,952 6,606 24 .9 0 .54

Householder Labor Force Status

In labor force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56,462,554 61,058 85 .6 0 .09 55,479,520 60,527 85 .6 0 .09 983,034 14,126 89 .3 0 .48 Employed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52,104,638 63,490 79 .0 0 .10 51,209,996 61,946 79 .0 0 .10 894,642 13,648 81 .3 0 .60 Unemployed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,357,916 32,873 6 .6 0 .05 4,269,524 33,509 6 .6 0 .05 88,392 4,477 8 .0 0 .39Not in Labor Force . . . . . . . . . . . 9,461,745 61,391 14 .4 0 .09 9,344,378 61,952 14 .4 0 .09 117,367 5,866 10 .7 0 .48

See footnotes at end of table .


(37 percent), this was particularly so when looking at children who lived with a parent who divorced last year (41 percent lived in the South).

The household and householders’ characteristics, in other words, the characteristics of the children’s parents, were also interesting to compare. Children living with a parent who divorced last year were more likely to be in a household below the poverty level (28 per-cent) compared with other children (19 percent). Children living with a parent who divorced last year were also more likely to be living in a rented home (53 percent) compared with other children (36 percent), and were more likely to be living in households headed by their moth-ers (73 percent) compared with other children (23 percent). The greater likelihood of children to live with mothers following divorce could explain why a greater pro-portion of such households were in poverty. Women, particularly

mothers, have lower earning poten-tial in the labor force.28 Children who lived with a recently divorced parent were also more likely to be living with their parents’ unmarried partners (13 percent) than other children (7 percent).29 This find-ing may be related to an important difference in the samples. Seventy-one percent of children who lived with parents who did not divorce last year were living in married-couple headed households, thus precluding the possibility of living in an unmarried partner household. Only 5 percent of children who lived with a parent who divorced in the last year were again living in a married-couple headed household.

28 Budig, Michelle J. and Paula England. 2001. “The Wage Penalty for Motherhood,” American Sociological Review, 66: 204–225.

29 Among the 7 percent of children who were living with parents who did not divorce in the last year and their parents’ unmarried partners included those in families formed outside of marriage.

historical Comparisons of the Ages at Which men and Women first marry

Historical comparisons of the ages at first marriage reveal a great deal about the changing role of mar-riage in the United States. Figures 5 and 6 are line graphs showing the percent distributions of men and women with first marriages by 5-year age groups for the 1970 NCHS data, the 1988 NCHS data, and the 2009 ACS data.30 Overall, these figures illustrate how the age distributions for both men and women entering into their first marriages have changed over time. These figures show that greater proportions of men and women in 2009 were marrying later and across a greater range of ages

30 The 1970 and 1988 vital statistics data for first marriages by age group was published in the following report: “National Center for Health Statistics. Advance report of final marriage statistics, 1988.” Monthly vital statistics report; vol. 40 no. 4, suppl. Hyatts-ville, Maryland: Public Health Service. 1991. The report is also available online at <www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/mvsr/supp /mv40_04s.pdf>..

Table 3.Characteristics of Children Who live With a parent Who divorced last Year:1 2009—Con.(For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www/)

Characteristic

Total children of householdersLives with a parent who did not

divorce last yearLives with a parent who divorced

last year

Number

Stan-dard error

Per-cent


Stan-dard error

Per-cent


Stan-dard error

Per-cent

Stan-dard error

Family StatusPresence of nonrelated adults . . 1,582,010 21,436 2 .4 0 .03 1,538,477 20,634 2 .4 0 .03 43,533 3,716 4 .0 0 .33Unmarried partner present . . . . 4,404,496 34,957 6 .7 0 .05 4,261,518 34,024 6 .6 0 .05 142,978 5,776 13 .0 0 .49Living in a multigenerational

household . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,064,690 25,727 4 .6 0 .04 3,021,467 25,524 4 .7 0 .04 43,223 2,914 3 .9 0 .26

TenureOwned home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41,854,262 87,524 63 .5 0 .15 41,337,771 87,737 63 .8 0 .15 516,491 10,792 46 .9 0 .74Rented home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24,073,213 108,790 36 .5 0 .15 23,489,303 108,355 36 .2 0 .15 583,910 12,054 53 .1 0 .74

Household TypeMarried-couple headed

household . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46,218,990 64,816 70 .1 0 .11 46,161,252 64,810 71 .2 0 .11 57,738 4,042 5 .2 0 .35Single-father headed

household . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,249,699 36,685 6 .4 0 .05 4,009,426 35,777 6 .2 0 .05 240,273 7,984 21 .8 0 .62Single-mother headed

household . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,458,786 68,851 23 .4 0 .10 14,656,396 65,701 22 .6 0 .09 802,390 12,786 72 .9 0 .68

(X) Not applicable .1 The children described in this table are under the age of 18 and are the own children of householders .2 Includes households with Supplemental Security Income (SSI), cash public assistance income, or Food Stamp benefits .Source: U .S . Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2009 .


than was the case in either 1970 or 1988. This is also evident in the shifting median ages at first mar-riage for men and women. In 1970, the median age of first marriages for men was 22.5 years and for women was 20.6 years. By 1988, the median age of first marriages for men was 25.5 years and for women was 23.7 years. In 2009, the median age of first marriages was about 6 years older than in 1970 (28.4 and 26.5 years for men and women, respectively).

Looking at Figure 5, 57 percent of men entered into their first mar-riages between the ages of 20 and 24 in 1970. By 1988, the highest proportion of men who entered into first marriages continued to be

between the ages of 20 and 24, but this percentage dropped to 39 per-cent. Over two decades later, the highest proportion of men entering into first marriages was those aged 25 to 29 (34 percent). In 2009, first marriages for men were also distributed across a range of age groups, including 24 percent mar-rying between the ages of 20 and 24, 20 percent marrying between the ages of 30 and 34, and 9 per-cent marrying between the ages of 35 and 39. In 1970, first marriages for men may have been associ-ated with a more narrow range of acceptable ages, or perhaps with particular transitions to adult-hood, such as college graduation. In contrast, in 2009, there is more variability in the timing of men’s

first marriages, with more men marrying at later ages than nearly 40 years earlier.

Figure 6 presents a point of com-parison to Figure 5 in that it shows the proportions of women who entered into first marriages in dif-ferent age groups in 1970, 1988, and 2009. One notable finding is that the proportion of women who first married when they were teenagers has gone down consider-ably in the last 39 years. In 1970, 42 percent of women marrying for the first time were teenagers, but in 1988 only 18 percent were teenag-ers, and by 2009 only 7 percent were teenagers. Overall many more women married at younger ages in 1970 compared with 2009. In

Figure 5. Percent Distribution of Men With First Marriages by Age: 1970, 1988, and 2009(For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www/)

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2009; National Center for Health Statistics, Monthly Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 40, No. 4(S), August 26, 1991.

Median age (1970): 22.5

Percent

Age at first marriage

Median age (1988): 25.5

Median age (2009): 28.4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

65 and over60–6455–5950–5445–4940–4435–3930–3425–2920–24Under 20

ACS(09)NCHS(88)NCHS(70)


1970, 88 percent of women had a first marriage by the age of 24, compared with only 38 percent of similar women in 2009. Compar-ing Figure 6 with Figure 5, greater proportions of women married at younger ages than men, consistent with demographic evidence that women often marry at younger ages and often marry men who are older than them. However, both figures illustrate consistent histori-cal changes: both men and women were marrying significantly later in 2009 than was the case in 1970.

durAtioNS of CurrENt mArriAGES

Understanding durations of cur-rent marriages reveals a great deal about those who are currently mar-ried and the differences between those married for decades com-pared with newlyweds. This section presents not only the characteris-tics of those married for different lengths of time, but their geo-graphic distributions in the United States. Predictably, the oldest Amer-icans tended to have marriages of longer durations. However, as this section will show, when age is controlled, the geographic story reveals a great deal about regional variations in marriage.

the Characteristics of Couples married for Varying durations of time

Table 4 presents the characteris-tics of married couples according to the durations of their current marriages. Looking at the charac-teristics of husbands and wives in such couples, it is not surprising that the median ages of husbands and wives are strongly associated with the durations of their current marriages. For those married less than 5 years, the median age of husbands was 33 years and the median age for wives was 31 years. For those married 20 or more years, the median age of husbands was 61 years and the median age for wives was 58 years. Those who

Figure 6. Percent Distribution of Women With First Marriages by Age: 1970, 1988, and 2009(For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www/)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2009

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2009; National Center for Health Statistics, Monthly Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 40, No. 4(S), August 26, 1991.

Median age (1970): 20.6ACS(09)NCHS(88)NCHS(70)

Percent

Age at first marriage

Median age (1988): 23.7

Median age (2009): 26.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

65 and over60–6455–5950–5445–4940–4435–3930–3425–2920–24Under 20


Table 4.Characteristics of opposite-Sex married people by the duration of their Current marriage: 2009(For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www/)

Characteristic

Duration of marriage

Number Percent

TotalUnder 5

years5 to 9 years

10 to 19 years

20 or more years Total

Under 5 years

5 to 9 years

10 to 19 years

20 or more years

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56,909,121 7,926,305 8,090,843 13,430,001 27,461,972 100 .0 13 .9 14 .2 23 .6 48 .3Husband’s median age (years) . . . 50 .7 33 .2 37 .9 44 .0 60 .7 (X) (X) (X) (X) (X)Wife’s median age (years) . . . . . . . 48 .5 30 .8 35 .5 41 .8 58 .3 (X) (X) (X) (X) (X)

Number of Times Husband Was Married

Once . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43,085,181 5,425,373 5,501,388 9,427,956 22,730,464 100 .0 12 .6 12 .8 21 .9 52 .8Twice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,963,604 1,863,703 1,960,187 3,118,417 4,021,297 100 .0 17 .0 17 .9 28 .4 36 .7Three or more times . . . . . . . . . . . 2,860,336 637,229 629,268 883,628 710,211 100 .0 22 .3 22 .0 30 .9 24 .8

Number of Times Wife Was Married

Once . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43,630,075 5,510,621 5,581,183 9,556,973 22,981,298 100 .0 12 .6 12 .8 21 .9 52 .7Twice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,670,931 1,810,247 1,914,688 3,081,254 3,864,742 100 .0 17 .0 17 .9 28 .9 36 .2Three or more times . . . . . . . . . . . 2,608,115 605,437 594,972 791,774 615,932 100 .0 23 .2 22 .8 30 .4 23 .6

Race and Hispanic Origin of Householder

White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47,159,924 6,247,404 6,368,197 10,816,217 23,728,106 100 .0 13 .2 13 .5 22 .9 50 .3 Black or African American . . . . . 3,838,981 704,083 658,988 957,445 1,518,465 100 .0 18 .3 17 .2 24 .9 39 .6 American Indian and

Alaska Native . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322,960 54,526 53,495 82,461 132,478 100 .0 16 .9 16 .6 25 .5 41 .0 Asian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,806,248 393,802 480,335 770,770 1,161,341 100 .0 14 .0 17 .1 27 .5 41 .4 Native Hawaiian and Other

Pacific Islander . . . . . . . . . . . . 71,014 12,979 12,752 18,627 26,656 100 .0 18 .3 18 .0 26 .2 37 .5 Some other race . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,980,588 369,235 384,467 596,944 629,942 100 .0 18 .6 19 .4 30 .1 31 .8Two or more races . . . . . . . . . . . . . 729,406 144,276 132,609 187,537 264,984 100 .0 19 .8 18 .2 25 .7 36 .3Hispanic or Latino origin

(of any race) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,596,165 1,157,320 1,214,195 1,899,151 2,325,499 100 .0 17 .5 18 .4 28 .8 35 .3White alone, not Hispanic

or Latino . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42,796,003 5,509,258 5,587,818 9,582,203 22,116,724 100 .0 12 .9 13 .1 22 .4 51 .7


Household below poverty level . . . 2,940,823 569,581 546,846 808,826 1,015,570 100 .0 19 .4 18 .6 27 .5 34 .5Household receives public

assistance1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,613,984 898,550 776,378 1,062,458 1,876,598 100 .0 19 .5 16 .8 23 .0 40 .7


Less than high school . . . . . . . . . . 6,226,623 734,743 791,997 1,365,763 3,334,120 100 .0 11 .8 12 .7 21 .9 53 .5High school graduate . . . . . . . . . . . 14,050,648 1,767,206 1,742,835 3,033,277 7,507,330 100 .0 12 .6 12 .4 21 .6 53 .4Some college . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16,981,070 2,619,511 2,557,240 4,057,386 7,746,933 100 .0 15 .4 15 .1 23 .9 45 .6Bachelor’s degree or more . . . . . . 19,650,780 2,804,845 2,998,771 4,973,575 8,873,589 100 .0 14 .3 15 .3 25 .3 45 .2

Householder Labor Force StatusIn labor force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41,431,981 6,887,049 6,848,846 11,205,929 16,490,157 100 .0 16 .6 16 .5 27 .0 39 .8 Employed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39,044,204 6,440,719 6,442,881 10,594,874 15,565,730 100 .0 16 .5 16 .5 27 .1 39 .9 Unemployed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,387,777 446,330 405,965 611,055 924,427 100 .0 18 .7 17 .0 25 .6 38 .7Not in Labor Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,476,525 1,038,783 1,241,953 2,223,974 10,971,815 100 .0 6 .7 8 .0 14 .4 70 .9

TenureOwned home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46,564,191 4,726,368 5,937,624 11,108,326 24,791,873 100 .0 10 .2 12 .8 23 .9 53 .2Rented home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,344,930 3,199,937 2,153,219 2,321,675 2,670,099 100 .0 30 .9 20 .8 22 .4 25 .8

(X) Not applicable .1 Includes households with Supplemental Security Income (SSI), cash public assistance income, or Food Stamp benefits .Note: See Appendix Table 2 for the standard errors that accompany the estimates on this table .Source: U .S . Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2009 .


made it past their twentieth anni-versary were also likeliest to have been married only once (53 percent of men and women). It may be more difficult to reach a twentieth anniversary if husbands and wives were previously married for any duration of time.

The characteristics of the house-holders in currently married couples also distinguish those mar-ried longest from the newlyweds.31

31 In Table 4 the race, ethnicity, educa-tional attainment, and labor force status are those of the householder. For about 98 percent of married couples in this table, either the husband or the wife is also the householder. About 2 percent of married couples described in this table were subfami-lies. Subfamilies include individuals who are living in another family members’ household. For married-couple subfamilies, the house-holders’ characteristics on race, ethnicity, educational attainment, and labor force status are displayed in this table, rather than the characteristics of either the husband or the wife in such couples.

Looking at race and ethnicity, over half of White, non-Hispanic house-holders in couples were married 20 or more years. In contrast, 32 percent of householders identifying as some other race were married 20 or more years. Characteristics like educational attainment, labor force status, and homeownership differed by the duration of mar-riage among couples because of the strong association of longer marriages with older ages. Overall, 54 percent of those with less than a high school degree were married 20 or more years. Among those not in the labor force (the category in which retirees are included), 71 percent had been married 20 or more years. Over half of all homeowners had been married for 20 or more years, while a little over one in ten homeowners had been married for less than 5 years.

Age-Controlled durations of Current marriages Across the united States

One way to distinguish the effects of age upon how long couples have been married is to control for age in analyses. By controlling for age, it is possible to clarify how the median duration of marriage is distinct from the age of the popula-tion of women in each state. So, states with a greater proportion of older women residing in them will not necessarily have estimates of the longest marriages among women. For example, Florida has a high proportion of older women residing there relative to other states. The median duration of first marriages among women in Florida was significantly above the U.S. median before age adjust-ments were performed. After performing age adjustments on

MT

SD

AK

NM

OR MN

KS

OK ARTN

KY

WVIN

MS AL

NEIA

MO

WA

FL

IL

WI NY

PA

MI

OH

ME

MA

CT

AZ

HI

NV

TX

COCA

WY

ND

UT

ID

GA

NC

LA

VA

SC

RI

DE MD DC

NJ

Figure 7.Age-Adjusted Durations of Current Marriages for Women in Their First Marriages: 2009(For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www/)

VT NH

U.S. Median:20.8 years

Durations of Current Marriages and Statistical Significance

12.8–20.0 years20.1–20.8 years20.9–22.0 years22.1–23.7 years


•

•

••

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

• •

•

•

•

••

•

• ••

••

••

••

•

•

••

••

•

•

•

••

•

••

Different from U.S. median

Durations of current marriages



the data, the median duration of first marriages among women in Florida was significantly below the national median duration of first marriages.32

Figure 7 shows state-level varia-tions in the age-adjusted median durations of first marriages for women. It presents whether women in each state had first marriages significantly longer, shorter, or not different from the national age-adjusted median duration of wom-en’s first marriages (20.8 years). In 2009, the middle of the country had durations of first marriages for women that were significantly longer than the U.S. median. Areas with marriages of significantly

32 The age adjustments performed on the data account for different age distribu-tions among women in each state in the United States. See the Appendix tables for the adjusted and nonadjusted durations of mar-riage in each state.

longer durations stretched from Idaho and Utah in the west to the Carolinas in the East, and from the Northern Plains states to the Gulf Coast. Exceptions to this were the states of Illinois and Colorado, which were below the U.S. median. Maine also stood alone in the Northeast for being significantly above the U.S. median. Much of the West and East Coasts of the country were characterized by median durations of first mar-riages among women that were not significantly different or were significantly below the U.S. median. Such regional differences may be associated with later ages at first marriage among women in these areas. For example, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, and New

Jersey all had median ages at first marriage in 2009 that were among the highest in the country.33 The median durations of first marriages in these states were significantly shorter than the U.S. median (Fig-ure 7). If women in particular states enter into first marriages at older ages, they will not be married as long as women in states where first marriages tend to occur at younger ages.

Figure 8 shows state-level varia-tions in the median durations of second marriages among women, and whether the durations of

33 Per ACS table R1205, in 2009, the high-est median ages at first marriage for women included the District of Columbia (29.6; +/– 0.7), Rhode Island (29.0; +/– 0.6), Massachusetts (28.9; +/– 0.3), New York (28.6; +/– 0.3), and New Jersey (28.0; +/– 0.4) <http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet /GRTTable?_bm=y&-_box_head_nbr=R1205 &-ds_name=ACS_2009_1YR_G00_&-_lang=en&-format=US-30&-CONTEXT=grt>.

MT

AK

NM

OR MN

KS

SD

ND

MO

WA

FL

IL IN

WI NY

PA

MI

OHIA

ME

MA

CT

AZ

HI

NV

TX

OK AR

MS AL

TN

KY

LA

COCA

WY

UT

ID

NE

GA

NC

VA

SC

WV

RI

DE MD DC

NJ

Figure 8.Age-Adjusted Durations of Current Marriages for Women in Their Second Marriages: 2009(For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www/)

VT NH

10.0–14.0 years14.1–14.5 years14.6–15.0 years15.1–15.8 years


U.S. Median:14.5 years

Durations of Current Marriages and Statistical Significance

Different from U.S. median

Durations of current marriages

Statistical significance•

•

•

•

•

••

•

•

••

•

•

•

••

••

••

•

•••

•

•

•


second marriages are significantly different from the overall U.S. median. The findings from Fig-ure 8 should be interpreted given two demographic phenomena: the later age at first marriage in some geographic regions and the pro-pensity toward remarriage in other geographic regions. As was dis-cussed for Figure 7, the Northeast tended to have women entering into first marriages at later ages, which was then associated with first marriages of shorter duration. As seen in Figure 8, New York, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New Jersey also had median dura-tions for second marriages for women below the U.S. median. Delays in first marriages in these states likely resulted in later second

marriages, too. Individuals in the Northeast are also characterized by lower likelihoods of remarriage rel-ative to other areas of the country, particularly the South.34 This could also contribute to a delay in second marriages and subsequent second marriages of shorter duration.

Figure 8 also reveals that states with longer durations of second marriages for women were also the same states where women marry at younger ages and are more likely to remarry. For example, 5 of the 13 states where women had median durations of second marriages significantly above the U.S. median were among states with younger ages at first marriage for women in 2009 (Idaho, Oklahoma, Arkansas,

34 Elliott, Diana B. and Jamie M. Lewis. 2010. “Embracing the Institution of Marriage: The Characteristics of Remarried Americans.” <www.census.gov/population /www/socdemo/marr-div/Remarriage.pdf>.

Kentucky, and Texas).35 So, states where women entered into first marriages at younger ages tended to be states where women remar-ried at younger ages, resulting in second marriages of longer length.

SummArY

The addition of marital history questions on the ACS in 2008 provides a new source for nation-ally representative, annual, and geographically specific data about marriages and recent marital events. Given the wide array of other questions asked on the ACS, the detailed characteristics of those who experienced recent marital events can be examined, as well as

35 See table R1205 <http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/GRTTable?_bm=y&-_box_head_nbr=R1205&-ds_name=ACS_2009_1YR_G00_&-_lang=en&-format=US-30&-CONTEXT=grt>.

tEChNiCAl NotE About AGE AdjuStmENtS iN fiGurES 7 ANd 8

The age-adjusted durations of current marriages for women in first marriages were calculated through a series of steps:

1. The analysis was restricted to women aged 15 and older who reported being in first marriages, with their ages recoded into a variable consisting of 5-year age groups. Their durations of marriage were measured in single-year durations, but were topcoded so those married 50 or more years were grouped into one upper limit category.

2. Then, the proportion of women in each 5-year age group was calculated by dividing the number of women in each age group by the total number of women 15 and older nationwide in first marriages. This step cre-ated first marriage “age weights” to later apply to the medians.

3. Next, the number of women within each state, age group, and number of years married were tabulated for each of the 80 replicate weights in the data. This step created total weighted counts of the duration of women’s first marriages, in single years, for each age group in each state.

4. Then, percentages were calculated by dividing the weighted counts of durations of first marriages for each age group in each state by the total. These percentages were then multiplied by the previously calculated “age weights” to create age-adjusted percentages.

5. The age-adjusted percentages were then used to calculate medians, or the 50th percentile cut-point, for the overall durations of first marriages for women in each state, along with associated standard errors. Sta-tistical tests were performed to determine if the age-adjusted medians for each state were significantly above or below the calculated national median duration of women’s first marriages.

6. This entire procedure was repeated for women in second marriages by restricting the initial analysis to women aged 15 and older who reported being in second marriages.


the characteristics of those married for varying lengths of time.

Age is closely associated with recent marital events. Those recently married are more likely to be younger and to have been married for the shortest durations of time. Those who are older are more likely to have been widowed recently and, if married, to have been wed for the longest durations of time. People living in Northeastern states have lower marriage and divorce rates, and women of the Northeast have first and second marriages of shorter durations. Those in Southern states are more likely to have higher mar-riage and divorce rates for men and women. Compared with 1970, men and women entered into their first marriages at later ages in 2009, and with more variation in the tim-ing of first marriages in 2009, than was the case historically.

Recently divorced women are more likely to be living with their own children, to be receiving public assistance, to be living in poverty, and to have less household income compared with recently divorced men. Children living with a par-ent who divorced in the last year constitute 1.5 percent of children nationwide and are more likely to be White alone, not Hispanic, living in the South, and living in a house-hold in poverty.

Overall, the addition of the marital events questions on the ACS will be a great resource for policymakers, the media, academics, and the gen-eral public to better understand the annual state of marriage, divorce, and widowhood in the United States.

SourCE of thE dAtA ANd ACCurACY of thE EStimAtES

the American Community Survey

Many of the findings presented in this report were based on the American Community Survey (ACS) data collected in 2009. These data were based on the population liv-ing in either households or group quarters (which include correc-tional facilities, nursing homes, college dormitories, group homes, and overnight shelters) that were included in the ACS sample. The U.S. Census Bureau is both the sponsor and the collector of the American Community Survey.

The 2009 ACS is based on a sample of just under 3 million housing unit addresses and a separate sample of just under 200 thousand people liv-ing in group quarters. ACS figures are estimates based on this sample and approximate the actual figures that would have been obtained by interviewing the entire household and group quarters populations using the same methodology. The estimates from the 2009 ACS sam-ple may also differ from estimates based on other survey samples of housing units and group quarters and the people living within those housing units and group quarters.

Historical figures comparing the ages at first marriage for men and women also use data collected in the Vital Statistics Registration system, published by the National Center for Health Statistics. For more information about the source and accuracy details about the Vital Statistics marriage-registration area, refer to the “Technical notes” section in the report, “National Center for Health Statistics. Advance report of final marriage statistics, 1988.” Monthly vital sta-tistics report; vol. 40 no. 4, suppl.

Hyattsville, Maryland: Public Health Service. 1991, also available online at <www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/mvsr /supp/mv40_04s.pdf>.

SAmpliNG ANd NoNSAmpliNG Error

Sampling error occurs when the characteristics of a sample are mea-sured instead of those of the entire population (as from a census). Note that sample-based estimates will vary depending on the particular sample selected from the popula-tion, but all attempt to approximate the actual figures. Measures of the magnitude of sampling error reflect the variation in the estimates over all possible samples that could have been selected from the popu-lation using the same sampling, data collection, and processing methods.

Estimates of the magnitude of sampling errors are provided in the form of margins of error for all key ACS estimates included in this report. The Census Bureau recom-mends that data users incorporate this information into their analyses, as sampling error in survey esti-mates could impact the conclusions drawn from the results. All com-parative statements in this report have undergone statistical testing, and comparisons are significant at the 90 percent confidence level unless noted otherwise. This means the 90 percent confidence inter-val for the difference between the estimates being compared does not include zero.

In addition to sampling error, non-sampling errors may be introduced during any phase of data collection or processing. For example, opera-tions such as editing, reviewing, or keying data from questionnaires may introduce error into the esti-mates. The primary source of non-sampling error and the processes instituted to control error in the


2009 ACS are described in further detail in the 2009 ACS Accuracy of the Data document (see Web link below).

Title 13, U.S. Code, Section 9, prohibits the Census Bureau from publishing results from which the identity of an individual survey respondent could be determined. For more information on how the Census Bureau protects the confi-dentiality of data, see the 2009 ACS Accuracy of the Data document, available at <www.census.gov/acs/www /Downloads/data_documentation /Accuracy/ACS_Accuracy_of _Data_2009.pdf>.

for morE iNformAtioN

Further information from the 2009 ACS is available on the Census Bureau’s Web site, at <www.census.gov/acs/www/>.

Measures of ACS quality—including sample size and number of inter-views, response and nonresponse rates, coverage rates, and item allocation rates—are available at <www.census.gov/acs /www/methodology /methodology_main/>.

Additional working papers and information about marriage and divorce are available on the Census Bureau’s Web site at <www.census .gov/hhes/socdemo/marriage /index.html>.

CoNtACt

Contact U.S. Census Bureau Customer Services Center at 1-800-923-8282 (toll free) or visit <ask.census.gov> for further information.

SuGGEStEd CitAtioN

Elliott, Diana B. and Tavia Simmons. 2011. Marital Events of Americans: 2009, American Community Survey Reports, ACS-13. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC.


Appendix Table 1. Standard Errors for table 2: Characteristics of those married, divorced, and Widowed in the last 12 months by Sex: 2009—Con.(For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www/)

CharacteristicTotal



Population 15 years and over . . . . . . . . . . 21,222 15,826 16,576 16,397 14,843 10,062 10,997 5,507 10,353

Age15 to 24 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 .01 0 .02 0 .01 0 .30 0 .36 0 .20 0 .25 0 .13 0 .0625 to 34 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 .01 0 .01 0 .01 0 .35 0 .35 0 .44 0 .44 0 .19 0 .1435 to 44 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 .01 0 .01 0 .01 0 .30 0 .28 0 .47 0 .40 0 .31 0 .1745 to 54 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 .01 0 .01 0 .01 0 .22 0 .20 0 .42 0 .37 0 .35 0 .2655 to 64 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . – 0 .01 0 .01 0 .14 0 .14 0 .26 0 .24 0 .48 0 .3465 years and over . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . – 0 .01 0 .01 0 .06 0 .06 0 .19 0 .15 0 .67 0 .44

Race and Hispanic OriginOne race . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 .01 0 .02 0 .02 0 .11 0 .11 0 .16 0 .14 0 .14 0 .10 White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 .02 0 .03 0 .02 0 .31 0 .28 0 .42 0 .37 0 .50 0 .40 Black or African American . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 .01 0 .01 0 .01 0 .23 0 .20 0 .35 0 .27 0 .41 0 .32 American Indian and Alaska Native . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 .01 0 .01 0 .01 0 .06 0 .06 0 .08 0 .08 0 .11 0 .09 Asian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 .01 0 .01 0 .01 0 .15 0 .13 0 .15 0 .17 0 .29 0 .22 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander . . . . . . . – – – 0 .03 0 .03 0 .05 0 .03 0 .07 0 .04 Some other race . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 .02 0 .03 0 .02 0 .19 0 .16 0 .23 0 .16 0 .25 0 .14Two or more races . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 .01 0 .02 0 .02 0 .11 0 .11 0 .16 0 .14 0 .14 0 .10Hispanic or Latino origin (of any race) . . . . . . . . . . . . . – 0 .01 – 0 .27 0 .28 0 .35 0 .40 0 .46 0 .27White alone, not Hispanic or Latino . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 .01 0 .01 0 .01 0 .37 0 .35 0 .50 0 .45 0 .57 0 .40

NativityNative born . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 .03 0 .03 0 .03 0 .25 0 .23 0 .34 0 .29 0 .48 0 .33Foreign born . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 .03 0 .03 0 .03 0 .25 0 .23 0 .34 0 .29 0 .48 0 .33

Educational Attainment Population 25 years and over . . . . . . . . . . 44,400 25,796 23,058 13,838 11,563 9,583 10,777 5,409 10,311Less than high school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 .03 0 .04 0 .04 0 .23 0 .27 0 .30 0 .27 0 .56 0 .40High school graduate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 .04 0 .05 0 .05 0 .33 0 .36 0 .44 0 .43 0 .68 0 .41Some college . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 .03 0 .05 0 .05 0 .32 0 .41 0 .52 0 .45 0 .54 0 .42Bachelor’s degree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 .03 0 .04 0 .04 0 .24 0 .33 0 .37 0 .32 0 .49 0 .27Graduate or professional degree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 .03 0 .03 0 .03 0 .20 0 .26 0 .26 0 .26 0 .34 0 .20

Number of Times Married Ever married population 15 years

and over . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112,431 67,212 56,815 16,397 14,843 10,062 10,997 5,507 10,353Once . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 .04 0 .05 0 .04 0 .36 0 .34 0 .52 0 .42 0 .67 0 .43Twice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 .04 0 .05 0 .04 0 .32 0 .29 0 .47 0 .36 0 .58 0 .41Three or more times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 .02 0 .02 0 .02 0 .18 0 .18 0 .28 0 .28 0 .35 0 .20

Population 15 years and over living in households . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21,290 27,144 26,399 16,570 14,793 10,053 10,847 5,339 10,257

Family StatusLiving with own children under 181 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 .03 0 .05 0 .03 0 .35 0 .33 0 .43 0 .43 0 .41 0 .24Has an unmarried partner 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 .02 0 .03 0 .02 0 .04 0 .05 0 .37 0 .32 0 .21 0 .11Living in a multigenerational household . . . . . . . . . . . 0 .03 0 .03 0 .04 0 .20 0 .19 0 .21 0 .32 0 .36 0 .27

Public Assistance in the Past 12 MonthsLiving in households with Supplemental Security

Income (SSI), cash public assistance income, or Food Stamp benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 .04 0 .04 0 .05 0 .28 0 .24 0 .31 0 .41 0 .50 0 .36

Household Income in the Past 12 MonthsLess than $25,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 .04 0 .04 0 .04 0 .25 0 .27 0 .42 0 .37 0 .73 0 .45$25,000 to $49,999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 .05 0 .05 0 .05 0 .33 0 .33 0 .47 0 .46 0 .58 0 .40$50,000 to $74,999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 .04 0 .04 0 .04 0 .26 0 .26 0 .46 0 .34 0 .52 0 .27$75,000 and over . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 .05 0 .06 0 .05 0 .31 0 .34 0 .52 0 .43 0 .63 0 .34 See footnotes at end of table .


Appendix Table 1. Standard Errors for table 2: Characteristics of those married, divorced, and Widowed in the last 12 months by Sex: 2009—Con.(For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www/)

CharacteristicTotal



Labor Force Status Civilian population 16 years and over . . . . 27,146 21,265 18,927 15,997 14,709 9,670 10,672 5,411 10,325In labor force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 .03 0 .04 0 .04 0 .22 0 .25 0 .34 0 .37 0 .61 0 .37 Employed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 .03 0 .04 0 .04 0 .25 0 .29 0 .49 0 .41 0 .61 0 .35 Unemployed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 .02 0 .03 0 .02 0 .20 0 .19 0 .33 0 .24 0 .27 0 .16Not in labor force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 .03 0 .04 0 .04 0 .22 0 .25 0 .34 0 .37 0 .61 0 .37

Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months Population 15 years and over for whom

poverty status is determined . . . . . . . . . 21,777 22,291 21,953 16,674 14,818 10,084 10,880 5,341 10,198Income in the past 12 months below

poverty level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 .04 0 .04 0 .04 0 .25 0 .24 0 .32 0 .42 0 .45 0 .34Income in the past 12 months at or above

poverty level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 .04 0 .04 0 .04 0 .25 0 .24 0 .32 0 .42 0 .45 0 .34

Veteran Status Civilian population 18 years and over . . . . 22,471 17,873 14,890 16,120 14,880 9,669 10,677 5,411 10,309Veterans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 .02 0 .03 0 .01 0 .22 0 .09 0 .39 0 .13 0 .85 0 .12

Disability Status Civilian noninstitutionalized population

15 years and over . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24,459 20,361 19,621 16,268 14,840 9,631 10,658 5,343 10,208With any disability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 .02 0 .03 0 .03 0 .17 0 .15 0 .36 0 .31 0 .71 0 .45

Population 15 years and over living in occupied housing units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21,290 27,144 26,399 16,570 14,793 10,053 10,847 5,339 10,257

Housing TenureIn owner-occupied housing units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 .09 0 .10 0 .08 0 .33 0 .34 0 .50 0 .45 0 .57 0 .47In renter-occupied housing units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 .09 0 .10 0 .08 0 .33 0 .34 0 .50 0 .45 0 .57 0 .47

Units in StructureIn 1-unit structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 .05 0 .07 0 .05 0 .36 0 .37 0 .50 0 .50 0 .67 0 .48In 2-or-more-unit structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 .05 0 .06 0 .05 0 .34 0 .33 0 .48 0 .44 0 .60 0 .41In mobile homes and all other types of units . . . . . . . . 0 .02 0 .03 0 .03 0 .20 0 .20 0 .27 0 .29 0 .42 0 .20

– Represents or rounds to zero .1 Includes children in subfamilies .2 Includes people who are either the householder or the unmarried partner of the householder .Source: U .S . Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2009 .


Appendix Table 2. Standard Errors for table 4: Characteristics of opposite-Sex married people by the duration of their Current marriage: 2009(For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www/)

Characteristic

Duration of marriage Duration of marriage

TotalUnder 5

years5 to 9 years

10 to 19 years

20 or more years Total

Under 5 years

5 to 9 years

10 to 19 years

20 or more years

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93,113 33,417 31,012 36,131 45,673 (X) 0 .05 0 .05 0 .05 0 .06Husband’s median age . . . . . . . . . . 0 .02 0 .05 0 .04 0 .03 0 .02 (X) (X) (X) (X) (X)Wife’s median age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 .02 0 .04 0 .04 0 .02 0 .02 (X) (X) (X) (X) (X)

Number of Times Husband Was Married

Once . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83,043 29,478 25,288 28,488 43,264 (X) 0 .05 0 .05 0 .06 0 .07Twice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31,520 14,674 12,666 17,857 16,673 (X) 0 .12 0 .10 0 .14 0 .13Three or more times . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,953 8,631 7,235 8,519 7,024 (X) 0 .26 0 .22 0 .24 0 .27

Number of Times Wife Was Married

Once . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84,401 30,112 26,515 27,291 42,788 (X) 0 .06 0 .05 0 .05 0 .06Twice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31,580 13,019 13,045 16,858 16,626 (X) 0 .11 0 .11 0 .13 0 .11Three or more times . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,258 6,777 6,574 8,584 6,663 (X) 0 .23 0 .22 0 .27 0 .24

Race and Hispanic Origin of Householder

White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70,675 28,342 26,460 28,817 39,167 (X) 0 .05 0 .05 0 .06 0 .07 Black or African American . . . . . . 19,021 8,719 9,023 10,356 11,421 (X) 0 .21 0 .22 0 .23 0 .24 American Indian and

Alaska Native . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,318 2,512 2,478 2,594 3,139 (X) 0 .68 0 .71 0 .71 0 .79 Asian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,416 5,905 6,776 8,192 7,048 (X) 0 .19 0 .23 0 .26 0 .24 Native Hawaiian and Other

Pacific Islander . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,319 1,329 1,337 1,341 1,337 (X) 1 .68 1 .76 1 .74 1 .60 Some other race . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16,435 7,704 5,868 8,231 7,617 (X) 0 .33 0 .28 0 .29 0 .32Two or more races . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,412 3,622 3,576 4,855 4,931 (X) 0 .40 0 .41 0 .50 0 .54Hispanic or Latino origin

(of any race) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24,529 11,117 10,457 13,571 13,581 (X) 0 .15 0 .14 0 .17 0 .17White alone, not Hispanic or

Latino . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59,237 24,893 22,431 25,131 36,578 (X) 0 .05 0 .05 0 .06 0 .07


Household below poverty level . . . . 16,561 8,533 8,157 8,235 8,385 (X) 0 .27 0 .24 0 .24 0 .24Household receives public

assistance1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22,114 10,120 8,106 9,936 12,051 (X) 0 .20 0 .16 0 .18 0 .19


Less than high school . . . . . . . . . . . 21,720 9,331 8,205 11,275 15,284 (X) 0 .14 0 .13 0 .15 0 .18High school graduate . . . . . . . . . . . . 36,684 14,289 14,480 16,294 24,294 (X) 0 .10 0 .09 0 .10 0 .12Some college . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42,601 15,705 15,550 20,092 26,197 (X) 0 .08 0 .09 0 .10 0 .10Bachelor’s degree or more . . . . . . . 53,113 19,118 17,854 21,234 27,384 (X) 0 .08 0 .08 0 .09 0 .10

Householder Labor Force StatusIn labor force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84,362 31,914 27,964 32,232 37,281 (X) 0 .06 0 .05 0 .06 0 .07 Employed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83,656 30,118 27,768 32,629 37,414 (X) 0 .06 0 .06 0 .07 0 .07 Unemployed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,095 7,172 5,882 7,743 8,010 (X) 0 .28 0 .23 0 .27 0 .27Not in labor force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32,288 10,535 11,346 16,400 24,673 (X) 0 .06 0 .07 0 .10 0 .11

TenureOwned home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91,840 24,647 27,033 32,989 46,036 (X) 0 .04 0 .05 0 .05 0 .06Rented home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33,718 17,583 15,457 18,038 16,137 (X) 0 .15 0 .13 0 .15 0 .13

(X) Not applicable .1 Includes households with Supplemental Security Income (SSI), cash public assistance income, or Food Stamp benefits .Source: U .S . Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2009 .


Appendix Table 3. data for figures 7 and 8: Adjusted and Nonadjusted median Ages and Standard Errors (SE) for Women in their first and Second marriages, by State: 2009(For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www/)

State

First marriages Second marriages

Age adjusted Not age adjusted Age adjusted Not age adjusted

Median SE Median SE Median SE Median SE

United States . . . . . . 20 .8 0 .02 20 .7 0 .03 14 .5 0 .04 14 .5 0 .04

Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 .4 0 .15 22 .4 0 .28 15 .2 0 .29 14 .0 0 .31Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 .9 0 .30 18 .6 0 .48 14 .1 0 .84 12 .4 0 .71Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 .6 0 .16 19 .3 0 .21 14 .1 0 .29 15 .3 0 .34Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 .0 0 .26 22 .4 0 .49 15 .4 0 .35 13 .9 0 .44California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 .8 0 .06 18 .6 0 .09 14 .1 0 .13 14 .6 0 .17Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 .3 0 .14 18 .4 0 .21 15 .0 0 .33 14 .8 0 .36Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 .8 0 .15 21 .7 0 .20 13 .6 0 .24 14 .4 0 .40Delaware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 .9 0 .30 21 .7 0 .51 14 .9 0 .63 16 .0 0 .55District of Columbia . . . . . . . . . 12 .8 0 .70 12 .3 0 .77 10 .0 0 .62 10 .3 0 .88Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 .9 0 .09 22 .0 0 .13 14 .3 0 .14 15 .2 0 .16

Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 .7 0 .11 18 .5 0 .19 14 .7 0 .16 13 .6 0 .21Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 .2 0 .22 20 .0 0 .40 13 .5 0 .56 13 .8 0 .69Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 .0 0 .32 19 .3 0 .35 15 .8 0 .68 14 .7 0 .66Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 .5 0 .09 20 .9 0 .13 14 .6 0 .15 14 .7 0 .16Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 .4 0 .14 22 .2 0 .25 15 .0 0 .29 14 .6 0 .32Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 .6 0 .18 25 .1 0 .27 14 .4 0 .36 14 .3 0 .43Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 .2 0 .16 22 .2 0 .34 15 .4 0 .27 14 .9 0 .36Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 .8 0 .15 22 .4 0 .24 15 .2 0 .24 13 .8 0 .32Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 .0 0 .18 22 .0 0 .27 15 .1 0 .30 13 .9 0 .36Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 .7 0 .24 25 .4 0 .35 14 .4 0 .44 15 .7 0 .55

Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 .5 0 .12 19 .7 0 .20 13 .6 0 .30 14 .6 0 .42Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 .5 0 .10 21 .2 0 .17 13 .1 0 .32 14 .3 0 .32Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 .2 0 .10 22 .6 0 .17 14 .6 0 .16 15 .4 0 .20Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 .2 0 .11 22 .6 0 .17 13 .8 0 .19 14 .1 0 .31Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 .5 0 .23 22 .4 0 .36 15 .1 0 .47 13 .5 0 .53Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 .0 0 .18 22 .2 0 .27 15 .0 0 .25 14 .9 0 .29Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 .7 0 .27 24 .2 0 .60 14 .6 0 .54 15 .4 0 .57Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 .9 0 .22 23 .5 0 .33 14 .8 0 .37 14 .6 0 .44Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 .9 0 .22 17 .5 0 .35 13 .5 0 .44 12 .9 0 .54New Hampshire . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 .0 0 .22 22 .7 0 .36 14 .2 0 .52 14 .7 0 .51

New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 .6 0 .08 20 .9 0 .13 13 .5 0 .23 14 .0 0 .28New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 .7 0 .20 20 .1 0 .32 14 .7 0 .39 15 .5 0 .72New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 .4 0 .07 21 .0 0 .12 13 .5 0 .17 13 .9 0 .21North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 .2 0 .12 20 .2 0 .20 14 .5 0 .23 14 .5 0 .26North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 .6 0 .23 25 .0 0 .46 14 .5 0 .50 14 .2 0 .54Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 .6 0 .10 23 .0 0 .16 14 .5 0 .18 14 .7 0 .21Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 .3 0 .19 21 .8 0 .34 15 .8 0 .27 14 .5 0 .33Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 .9 0 .16 20 .6 0 .24 15 .0 0 .29 16 .3 0 .40Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 .9 0 .08 23 .9 0 .12 14 .2 0 .22 15 .1 0 .26Rhode Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 .1 0 .29 22 .6 0 .56 13 .1 0 .54 13 .6 0 .43

South Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 .4 0 .21 22 .5 0 .29 14 .6 0 .31 14 .7 0 .37South Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 .5 0 .38 24 .4 0 .52 14 .5 0 .83 14 .8 0 .96Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 .1 0 .14 21 .6 0 .21 15 .4 0 .23 14 .5 0 .29Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 .4 0 .08 18 .2 0 .11 15 .2 0 .13 13 .9 0 .19Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 .6 0 .20 17 .5 0 .28 14 .8 0 .40 12 .2 0 .65Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 .3 0 .24 23 .2 0 .44 13 .2 0 .68 15 .0 0 .84Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 .5 0 .11 20 .2 0 .16 14 .5 0 .24 14 .1 0 .25Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 .7 0 .12 19 .3 0 .18 15 .5 0 .25 16 .0 0 .31West Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 .0 0 .30 25 .3 0 .41 15 .0 0 .39 14 .4 0 .42Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 .6 0 .11 23 .7 0 .15 13 .7 0 .25 14 .1 0 .30Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 .7 0 .31 22 .4 0 .71 15 .2 1 .14 14 .0 1 .32

Source: U .S . Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2009 .

U.S. Department of CommerceEconomics and Statistics Administration U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

Washington, DC 20233

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

Penalty for Private Use $300

FIRST-CLASS MAIL

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

U.S. Census Bureau

Permit No. G-58

ContentsMarital Events of Americans: 2009 1ACS marital EVENTS items 1Geographic Variations in marriage, divorce, and Widowhood rates

2Marriage, Divorce, and Widowhood Rates Per 1,000 Men and Women

Aged 15 and Over for the Nation, Regions, and States: 2009 3Profiles of Americans WhO EXPERIENCED a Marital Event in the Last

Year 6Characteristics of Men and Women Who Married, Divorced, or Were

Widowed Last Year 6Characteristics of Those Married, Divorced, and Widowed in the Last

12 Months, by Sex: 2009—Con. 8

Characteristics of Those Married, Divorced, and Wid-owed in the Last 12 Months, by Sex: 2009—Con. 9

Characteristics of the Children Living With a Parent Who Divorced in the Last Year 10

Characteristics of Children Who Live With a Parent Who Divorced Last Year:1 2009—Con. 11

Characteristics of Children Who Live With a Parent Who Divorced Last Year:1 2009—Con. 12

Historical Comparisons of the Ages at Which Men and Women First Marry 12

DuRATIONS OF CURRENT MARRIAGES 14The Characteristics of Couples Married for Varying Durations of Time

14Characteristics of Opposite-Sex Married People by the Duration of

Their Current Marriage: 2009 15Age-Controlled Durations of Current Marriages Across the United

States 16Technical Note About Age Adjustments in Figures 7 and 8 18SUMMARY 18SOURCE OF THE DATA AND ACCURACY OF THE ESTIMATES 19The American Community Survey 19Sampling and Nonsampling Error 19FOR MORE INFORMATION 20CONTACT 20SUGGESTED CITATION 20Standard Errors for Table 2: Characteristics of Those Married,

Divorced, and Widowed in the Last 12 Months by Sex: 2009—Con. 21Standard Errors for Table 2: Characteristics of Those Married,

Divorced, and Widowed in the Last 12 Months by Sex: 2009—Con. 22Standard Errors for Table 4: Characteristics of Opposite-Sex Married

People by the Duration of Their Current Marriage: 2009 23Data for Figures 7 and 8: Adjusted and Nonadjusted Median Ages and

Standard Errors (SE) for Women in Their First and Second Marriages, by State: 2009 24

Census report on Marital Events of Americans 2009

Documents

Transcript of Census report on Marital Events of Americans 2009